The Journal of Educational Research, 103:342–350, 2010
Copyright !
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-067 online
DOI:10.1080/00220670903383069
Teacher Stress: The Mediating Role
of Collective Efficacy Beliefs
ROBERT M. KLASSEN
University of Alberta, Canada
ABSTRACT. The aims of the study were to (a) examine the
factor structure of measures of teachers’ collective efficacy
(TCE), job stress, and job satisfaction, and (b) explore the
mediating effect of collective efficacy on the relationship be-
tween job stress and job satisfaction. The sample consisted
of 951 teachers from elementary and secondary schools in
Canada. Measures of TCE, job stress, and job satisfaction
showed consistent factor patterns across school levels and
gender. Female teachers reported significantly higher levels
of stress from workload and student misbehavior. TCE for
student discipline mediated the influence of job stress from
student misbehavior on job satisfaction, and the relationship
was consistent across groups. The results from this study
suggest that teachers’ collective efficacy may lower teachers’
stress attributed to student behavior.
Keywords: collective efficacy, stress, teachers
T eaching is a stressful occupation (Chaplain, 2008;
Kyriacou, 2001), and high levels of occupational
stress have a strong effect on teachers’ perfor-
mance, career decisions, physical and mental health, and
overall job satisfaction (Jepson & Forrest, 2006). Many
teachers find personal satisfaction from their work, but job
satisfaction suffers when stress from student behavior and
teaching demands are high (Manthei, Gilmore, Tuck, &
Adair, 1996). Teachers’ job stress may, however, be ame-
liorated by school policies, support from colleagues and
school leaders, and from a sense of collective efficacy; that
is, teachers’ perceptions that the school staff, as a group,
can effectively work together to improve student learning
and behavior. Recent studies have shown that the col-
lective efficacy of teachers may have a positive effect on
job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca,
2003), but studies investigating teachers’ collective effi-
cacy and job stress are rare, and evidence for validity of
commonly used measures is lacking. There were two goals
in the present study: first, to test the validity and fac-
tor structure of multifactor measures of teachers’ collec-
tive efficacy (TCE) and job stress and, second, to examine
the relationships between TCE, job stress, and job satis-
faction for teachers at two school levels (elementary and
secondary).
Teachers’ Collective Efficacy
TCE has been deemed a “neglected construct” (Goddard,
2001, p. 467) in educational psychology research, with most
motivation research focused on beliefs about individual fac-
tors, such as self-efficacy, that influence teacher and stu-
dent behavior. Collective efficacy beliefs reflect teachers’
perceptions of group-level attributes; that is, judgments of
the capabilities of the staff or school to which they belong.
Research has shown that TCE is related to student achieve-
ment and academic climate, even after controlling for prior
student achievement and demographic characteristics, such
as socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., Bandura, 1993; Klassen
et al., 2008). A group’s collective efficacy is influenced by
past success, observation of other groups’ successes, and en-
couragement from influential others (Goddard & Goddard,
2001). It is plausible that when teachers experience chal-
lenges and failures that may raise stress and lower job satis-
faction, these setbacks may be ameliorated by beliefs in the
school’s collective capacity to effect change. Unfortunately,
validity evidence for measures of TCE and teachers’ job-
related beliefs is rare, and few studies have examined how
beliefs in collective capabilities might influence teachers’
job stress.
Job Satisfaction and Job Stress
Teachers’ job satisfaction—perceptions of the fulfillment
derived from day-to-day work activities—is important be-
cause it influences teachers’ performance, commitment, ab-
senteeism, physical and mental health, and overall well-
being (Caprara et al., 2003; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, &
Patton, 2001). Caprara et al. labeled job satisfaction a “deci-
sive element” (p. 823) that influences teacher attitudes and
performance and suggested that self- and collective efficacy
both contribute to teachers’ job satisfaction. Although it is
widely believed that job satisfaction is influential for teacher
and school success, surprisingly little research has examined
Address correspondence to Robert M. Klassen, University of Alberta,
Educational Psychology, Education North 6-102, Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2G5, Canada. (E-mail: robert.klassen@ualberta.ca)
The Journal of Educational Research
the job satisfaction of teachers (Evans, 1998), with most
studies using small samples from a limited number of schools.
Teacher stress—defined as the experience of nega-
tive emotions resulting from a teacher’s work (Kyriacou,
2001)—is inversely related to teacher self-efficacy (Betoret,
2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and positively related
to poor teacher–pupil rapport and low levels of teacher ef-
fectiveness (Abel & Sewell, 1999; Kokkinos, 2007). The
outcomes of teachers’ work-related stress are serious and
may include burnout, depression, poor performance, absen-
teeism, low levels of job satisfaction, and, eventually, the
decision to leave the profession (Betoret; Jepson & Forrest,
2006). Teacher stress is not inevitable in challenging con-
ditions: teachers in schools where there is good communi-
cation among staff and a strong sense of collegiality express
lower levels of stress and higher levels of commitment and
job satisfaction (Kyriacou). Many studies of teacher stress
have used single-item or unifactor measures that ask teach-
ers to rate overall stress levels (i.e., “In general, how stressful
do you find being a teacher?”; Jepson & Forrest; Manthei
et al., 1996). However, stress from teaching is likely mul-
tifaceted. Kyriacou listed 10 sources of teacher stress, with
“maintaining discipline” and “time pressures and workload”
(p. 29) especially relevant to overall stress. Boyle, Borg, Fal-
zon, & Baglioni (1995) noted, “workload and student mis-
behavior are the two major contributors to teacher stress”
(p. 62), and other researchers (e.g., Chaplain, 2008; Green-
glass & Burke, 2003) have concluded that workload and
student behavior are two primary components of teacher
stress. Using unidimensional measures of teacher stress may
obscure understanding of this multifactorial construct, but
little research has examined the factor structure of teacher
stress measures.
Although teachers’ job stress has been shown to directly
influence job satisfaction (e.g., Greenglass & Burke, 2003),
TCE may act as a buffer in the relationship between job
stress and job satisfaction. Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti,
and Xanthopoulou (2007) noted that job resources such as
social support, feedback, and collegiality boosted teacher
motivation, especially in schools where job demands such as
pupil misbehavior were high. A teacher’s confidence about
a school staff’s collective efficacy to manage student behav-
ior may result in lower levels of personal stress from stu-
dent misbehavior. Bandura (1997) suggested that schools
are “strewn with conditions that can easily erode teachers’
sense of efficacy and occupational satisfaction” (p. 244), but
that teachers in efficacious schools set higher standards for
pupils’ academic achievement and behavior, maintain a re-
silient sense of instructional efficacy, and spend more time
actively teaching and monitoring academic progress. Al-
though recent research has confirmed the relationship be-
tween TCE and pupil achievement (e.g., Tschannen-Moran
& Barr, 2004), no studies to date have explored how TCE
might influence teachers’ job stress.
Other factors, such as school level and teacher gender,
may influence the relationships among TCE, job stress, and
343
job satisfaction. School level (i.e., elementary or secondary
school) may also influence teachers’ stress and job satisfac-
tion because organizational structure, student characteris-
tics, and academic climate differ according to the age of stu-
dents served. For example, Wolters and Daugherty (2007)
found elementary teachers reported higher levels of indi-
vidual efficacy for student engagement than did teachers
of older children. Teacher gender may also influence per-
ceptions of stress and its relationship with job satisfaction
and collective efficacy. Recent research (e.g., Greenglass
& Burke, 2003; Kokkinos, 2007) has reported that female
teachers experience greater emotional exhaustion (an ele-
ment of burnout related to job stress) than male teachers,
possibly because of inequities in total workload (paid and un-
paid work). Although Jepson and Forrest (2006) did not find
gender to be related to perceived stress for teachers, Punch
and Tuettmann (1990) found that work-related stress fac-
tors accounted for more variance in psychological distress
for women than men. Additional research using multifactor
measures of stress may provide new insight into the relation-
ship of gender and teacher stress.
Present Study
The first objective of the study was to test the factor struc-
ture of the TCE, job stress, and job satisfaction measures.
The second objective was to test a structural model of TCE,
job stress, and job satisfaction, and particularly to test a
mediation model in which it was hypothesized that TCE
would mediate the effect of job stress on job satisfaction.
This hypothesis is plausible because (a) teachers’ job stress
is related to job satisfaction (Manthei et al., 1996) and (b)
teachers’ collective efficacy can be considered a job resource,
theorized to reduce the negative influence of job stress from
student misbehavior on teacher engagement, and, by exten-
sion, job satisfaction (Bakker et al., 2007). The fit of the
models was tested across genders and school levels in order
to understand the generalizability of the model for different
populations and across contexts.
Method
Participants
Participants were 951 teachers from elementary (n =
401) and secondary (n = 550) schools in western Canada.
Teachers were 68% female, taught in a mix of metropoli-
tan (55%), suburban (11%), and rural (27%) settings, and
reported cultural heritage as European Canadian (88%),
Asian Canadian (4%), First Nations (2%), and other or
not listed (6%). Participants were volunteers who were ap-
proached at one of three large compulsory teacher conven-
tions representing over 200 schools and were asked to fill
out a brief questionnaire on teacher motivation. Approxi-
mately 75% of teachers approached agreed to complete the
survey.
344
Measures
Collective efficacy. The Collective Teacher Efficacy Be-
lief Scale (CTEBS) was created by Tschannen-Moran and
Barr (2004) and contains 12 items, with six 9-point items
representing each of two hypothesized factors: TCE for in-
struction (item example: “How much can teachers in your
school do to produce meaningful student learning?”) and
TCE for student discipline (item example: “To what extent
can teachers in your school help control disruptive behav-
ior?”). The CTEBS was constructed to reflect teachers’ indi-
vidual perceptions about their school’s collective capabilities
to influence student achievement and is based on teachers’
analysis of the teaching staff’s capabilities to effectively teach
all students. Earlier measures of TCE (e.g., Goddard, 2002)
provided important first steps in measuring collective effi-
cacy, but were marred by conceptual confusion with the
inclusion of items measuring teachers’ perceptions of how
environmental factors influenced student performance (e.g.,
“Homelife provides so many advantages the students here
are bound to learn”; Goddard, p. 107), and by items focusing
on present abilities, rather than the more theoretically con-
gruent forward-looking capabilities, a subtle but important
distinction in efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997).
The advantage of measuring collective efficacy with the
CTEBS is that it offers a conceptually sound operational-
ization of TCE through a focus on teachers’ beliefs about
their collective capabilities to influence student achieve-
ment. The CTEBS assesses teachers’ individual perceptions
of TCE and recognizes that, although collective beliefs may
be shared beliefs, they are held by individuals. Hence, teach-
ers from the same school may have differing perceptions of
their school’s collective efficacy. It has been claimed that the
CTEBS measure is conceptually superior to previous mea-
sures because it assesses teachers’ beliefs in their collective
capabilities, rather than the external factors that influence
student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). A
recent cross-cultural study (Klassen et al., 2008) reported
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the CTEBS, but the
authors neither examined the scale across school levels or
by gender nor linked collective efficacy with job stress.
Job satisfaction and job stress. Job satisfaction was mea-
sured with a one-factor, three-item, 9-point Likert-type scale
with strong evidence of reliability (α = .89) and validity
in a study conducted by Caprara et al. (2003; item ex-
ample: “I am satisfied with my job”). Job stress was mea-
sured using seven items representing two factors (workload
and student behavior) from the Teacher Stress Inventory
(Boyle et al., 1995), plus an additional item (class size) sug-
gested from recent teacher stress research (Gates, 2007).
The job stress items were presented with the stem, “As a
teacher, how great a source of stress are these factors to
you?” with responses ranging from 1 (No stress) to 9 (Ex-
treme stress). The items from each scale can be viewed
in Table 1.
The Journal of Educational Research
Preliminary Analysis
Because little research has explored the factor structure of
the measures in the study, a preliminary (exploratory) factor
analysis seemed warranted in order to ensure independence
of the hypothesized factors of the study variables. Exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) can be useful to provide initial evi-
dence of factor structure when measures have not been used
in many settings or with diverse populations (Wolters &
Daugherty, 2007). The EFA (presented in Table 1) of the
23 items from job satisfaction, TCE for instruction, TCE for
student discipline, job stress from workload, and job stress
from student behavior was conducted using principal compo-
nent analysis with direct oblimin rotation (oblique rotation
was used due to the correlations among the scales). Five clear
factors with eigenvalues > 1.0 emerged from the analysis and
explained 63.34% of the total variance. An examination of
the scree plot confirmed the five factors, with a change in
slope between components five and six. The emergent fac-
tors corresponded with the five hypothesized factors, with
three items representing job satisfaction, six items repre-
senting each of TCE for instruction and student discipline,
and the expected four items representing each of job stress
from workload and student behavior.
Analyses
The subsequent analyses included the use of MANOVA
to examine levels of the study variables according to school
level and teacher gender. Next, following the two-step mod-
eling advice provided by Kline (1998), CFA was used to
estimate the fit of the measurement model, and structural
equation modeling (SEM) was used to test structural models
across groups.
Results
Comparisons Across Groups
Table 2 presents reliability coefficients, means, and stan-
dard deviations for study variables according to school level
and gender. Results from a 2 × 2 (School Level × Gender)
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed no
main effect for school level, λ = .99, F(5, 943) = 1.73, p =
.13, but a significant effect for gender, λ = .98, F(5, 943)
= 3.54, p = .009, partial η2 = .02. Follow-up tests revealed
women rated both stress variables higher than did men: stress
from workload, F(1, 950) = 12.51, p = .01, partial η2 = .02,
and stress from student behavior, F(1, 950) = 10.41, p =
.01, partial η2 = .02. There was no significant interaction ef-
fect. A follow-up examination of the individual stress items
revealed that female teachers rated all items higher than
did male teachers, with significant differences (Bonferroni
adjusted with p < .006) found on four of eight individual
variables (stress from: difficult class, maintaining class dis-
cipline, students’ impolite behavior or rudeness, large class
The Journal of Educational Research 345

TABLE 1. Rotated Factor Scores from Pattern Matrix (Oblimin Rotation) for Teachers’ Collective Efficacy, Sources of
Stress, and Job Satisfaction Scale Items (N = 951)

Factor 2: Factor 3:
Factor 1: TCE for Stress from Factor 4:
TCE for student student Stress from Factor 5:
Item description instruction discipline behavior workload Job satisfaction

TCE
1. How much can teachers in your .60
school do to produce meaningful
student learning?
2. How much can your school do to get .61
students to believe they can do well
in schoolwork?
5. How much can teachers in your .72
school do to help students master
complex content?
6. How much can teachers in your .70
school do to promote deep
understanding of academic concepts?
9. How much can teachers in your .70
school do to help students think
critically?
11. How much can your school do to .56
foster student creativity?
3. To what extent can teachers in your −.57
school make expectations clear about
appropriate student behavior?
4. To what extent can school personnel −.59
in your school establish rules and
procedures that facilitate learning?
7. How well can teachers in your school −.89
respond to defiant students?
8. How much can school personnel in −.89
your school do to control disruptive
behavior?
10. How well can adults in your school −.78
get students to follow school rules?
12. How much can your school do to −.62
help students feel safe while they are
at school?
As a teacher, how great a source of stress are these factors for you. . .?
1. Difficult class .71
3. Noisy students .82
5. Maintaining class discipline .86
6. Students’ impolite behavior or .85
rudeness
2. Responsibility for student .56
achievement (e.g., exam success)
4. Too much work to do (e.g., .69
paperwork/preparing
lessons/marking)
7. Having extra duties/responsibilities .69
because of absent teachers
8. Large class size .69
Job satisfaction
1. I am satisfied with my job .88
2. I am satisfied with what I achieve at .89
work
3. I feel good at work .90

Note. Factor scores below .40 are not listed. TCE = teachers’ collective efficacy.
 346

TABLE 2. Reliability Coefficients and Levels of Collective Efficacy, Job Stress, and Job Satisfaction for Male and Female Teachers in Elementary and Secondary Schools

Elementary schools (n = 401) Secondary schools (n = 550) Combined (N = 951)

Men Women Men Women Men Women

(n = 89) (n = 312) Total (n = 216) (n = 334) Total (n = 305) (n = 646) Total

Variable α M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

TCE for .78 43.75 5.67 43.16 7.42 43.29 7.06 43.09 5.61 42.91 5.78 42.98 5.71 43.28 5.63 43.03 6.62 43.11 6.32
instruction
TCE for discipline .88 44.61 5.81 43.86 6.44 44.03 6.30 43.53 6.55 42.56 7.12 42.94 6.91 43.84 6.35 43.19 6.82 43.40 6.68
Stress from .67 21.85 6.43 23.65 6.36 23.25 6.41 21.49 5.92 22.98 6.34 22.40 6.22 21.60 6.07 23.30 6.36 22.76 6.31
workload
Stress from .86 21.05 6.91 22.00 6.31 21.78 6.45 20.48 6.72 22.72 6.77 21.82 6.67 20.65 6.77 22.37 6.56 21.82 6.67
standard
behavior
Job satisfaction .89 22.15 4.10 22.34 3.47 22.30 3.61 22.14 3.77 21.60 3.86 21.81 3.83 22.14 3.86 21.95 3.69 22.01 3.75

Note. TCE = teachers’ collective efficacy. TCE for discipline contained 5 items; TCE for instruction contained 6 items.
The Journal of Educational Research
The Journal of Educational Research
TABLE 3. Correlations for Collective Efficacy, Job Stress, and Job Satisfaction
Variable 1 2
1. Job satisfaction —
2. TCE total .47∗∗
3. TCE instruction .38∗∗
4. TCE student discipline .46∗∗
5. Stress total −.27∗∗
6. Stress from workload −.21∗∗
7. Stress from behavior −.27∗∗
Note. TCE = teachers’ collective efficacy.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
size). Significantly more female teachers (21.3%) rated the
stress from workload variable at a mean score of 7 or higher,
indicating “quite a bit” or “a great deal” of stress from work-
load factors. In comparison, 13.4 % of male teachers rated
stress from workload at a mean of 7 or higher (p < .01 us-
ing χ 2 comparisons). Similarly, significantly more women
(18.6%) than men (12.8%) reported feeling “quite a bit” or
“a great deal” of stress from student behavior (p < .01).
Correlations
Table 3 presents bivariate correlations for the measures of
interest for the overall sample, with all TCE and stress scales
and subscales significantly related to job satisfaction (all
ps < .01).
Measurement Model
CFA was used to confirm the hypothesized factor struc-
tures of the combined variables (TCE for instruction, TCE
for student discipline, stress from workload, stress from stu-
dent behavior, and job satisfaction) across groups (elemen-
tary and secondary teachers; male and female teachers).
Good model fit is indicated by χ 2/df < 3.0, root-mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) below .08, and goodness-
of-fit values above .90 (Bakker et al., 2007). Baseline models
for each group were established and then compared using
increasingly stringent tests of across-group invariance. Hier-
archical goodness of fit was evaluated by changes in the com-
parative fit index (CFI), as suggested by Cheung & Rensvold
(2002).
The initial measurement model for the overall sample
showed moderate fit, χ 2/df = 4.62, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .06.
Adding three correlated error variances (δ 1,2 , δ 3,4 , δ 7,8 ) on
the TCE measures based on the modification indices, item-
scale characteristics (e.g., adjacent items on a scale), and on
similarities in wording among the items made a significant
difference in the fit of the model (p for &χ 2 < .001), with a
347
3 4 5 6
—
.90∗∗ —
.91∗∗ .63∗∗ —
−.12∗∗ −.08∗ −.14∗∗ —
−.07∗ −.05 −.08∗ .87∗∗ —
−.14∗∗ −.09∗∗ −.16∗∗ .89∗∗ .54∗∗
final fit of χ 2/df = 2.91, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05. All items
in the model showed moderate to high factor loadings.
The baseline measurement models showed a good fit to
the data for elementary teachers, χ 2/df = 1.89, CFI = .96,
RMSEA = .05; secondary teachers, χ 2/df = 2.78, CFI = .94,
RMSEA = .06; male teachers, χ 2/df = 2.04, CFI = .94, RM-
SEA = .06; and female teachers, χ 2/df = 2.37, CFI = .96,
RMSEA = .05. Results from the test of the baseline mod-
els confirm that the factors correspond to the hypothesized
(and EFA-generated) structure, and provide evidence of in-
ternal validity and a common factor structure of the measures
across school level and gender groups. Subsequent tests of
invariance (not reported due to space constraints), showed
&CFI of less than .01 when additional constraints were im-
posed (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), suggesting invariance
of pattern coefficients, structural variances, and structural
covariances across groups. Invariance testing across school
levels and genders suggests that the measures operate in a
similar way for these groups of teachers, and lends further
evidence of validity.
Structural Model and Mediation Analysis
The hypothesized structural model (see Figure 1) showed
an adequate fit for the overall sample, χ 2(219, N = 951) =
644.39, χ 2/df = 2.94, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05. The model
showed similar levels of fit across school level and gender
groups, with multigroup invariance showing no significant
change with additional constraints (i.e., &CFI or significant
changes in χ 2/df), suggesting the structural model fit well
across school level and gender groups.
Next, SEM tests of mediation were conducted to exam-
ine the mediating effects of the TCE variables on the rela-
tionship between stress and satisfaction. Conducting medi-
ation analysis with SEM has several advantages over media-
tion analysis using hierarchical regression (Shrout & Bolger,
2002). The SEM approach offers a better statistical tool for
investigating latent variables with multiple indicators, al-
lows for the simultaneous analysis of multiple indicators, and
348
FIGURE 1. Structural model of relationship among TCE, stress, and job satisfaction. Numbers in parentheses are for direct
effects (i.e., unmediated path coefficients). Probability levels listed only for path coefficients. All other loadings, variances, and
covariances significant at p < .01. Item content for TCE is available in Table 1. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
controls for measurement error. The bootstrap method of
SEM-based mediation analysis was used in this study. Boot-
strapping involves resampling the data multiple times (2000
times in this study) with replacement in order to generate an
estimation of the sampling distribution of a statistic (for fur-
ther rationale for this approach, see Cheung & Lau, 2008).
The AMOS 16 program (Arbuckle, 2007) provides esti-
mates of the indirect effects in mediated models, with ac-
companying p values, based on a two-tailed significance test.
A mediation effect is noted when the direct path between
stress and job satisfaction is significantly lowered with the
introduction of the presumed mediator. TCE for instruction
did not significantly mediate the relationship between job
stress from workload and job satisfaction, with the direct
path coefficient negligibly reduced with the addition of the
presumed mediator (see Figure 1 for the change in path co-
efficients with the addition of the mediator). In other words,
stress from workload was not lower when teachers perceived
a higher level of school collective efficacy for instruction. In
contrast, the effect of job stress from behavior on job satis-
faction was partially mediated by the presumed mediator of
TCE for student behavior (p < .01). These relationships were
tested across groups, with similar findings of nonsignificant
mediation for TCE for instruction and significant (partial)
The Journal of Educational Research
mediation for TCE for student behavior. The results from
the mediation analysis suggest teachers’ beliefs about staff
collective confidence to manage student misbehavior low-
ers (but does not eliminate) stress resulting from student
behavior; this finding was consistent across school level and
gender groups. One would expect that teachers’ beliefs about
their own capabilities to manage student behavior problems
would lower job stress from student behavior; the important
finding from this study is that teachers’ beliefs about their
school staff capabilities as a group influences job stress from
student behavior.
Discussion
The findings from the present study extend previous stud-
ies investigating teachers’ collective efficacy. Exploratory
and CFA provided support for multifactor conceptualiza-
tions of collective efficacy and job stress, and this fac-
tor structure was consistent across school level and gen-
der groups. Job stress from workload and student behavior
was higher for female teachers than for male teachers, but
there was no difference in TCE, job stress, or job satisfac-
tion across school levels. Finally, teachers’ beliefs in col-
lective efficacy to maintain student discipline significantly
The Journal of Educational Research
mediated the effect of job stress from student behavior on job
satisfaction.
Although some previous measures have conceptualized
TCE as a unidimensional structure (Caprara et al., 2003;
Ware & Kitsantas, 2007), results from this study support
conceptualization of TCE as multidimensional, with at least
two distinct factors. The factor analyses of the Tschannen-
Moran and Barr (2004) TCE measure revealed stable fac-
tor structure across diverse groups, with factors of TCE for
instruction and student discipline emerging from the EFA
and confirmed through the CFA. Nevertheless, the TCE
measure was restricted to two domains of TCE, and other
domains such as teachers’ collective confidence to involve
leadership and support services may also reflect important
collective efficacy domains. Similarly, the results from this
study suggest that job stress is reasonably conceptualized
as a multifactor construct, with distinct factors related to
workload and student behavior. The stability of the factor
structure of these measures was shown for teachers in el-
ementary and secondary schools, and for male and female
teachers.
The results reported in the present article show modestly
higher job stress for female teachers than for male teach-
ers, and this held true for job stress from workload and from
student behavior, and in elementary and secondary schools.
More women than men experienced “quite a bit” or “a great
deal” of stress from workload and stress from student behav-
ior. These results are consistent with previous studies show-
ing modest but persistent gender differences in job stress
among teachers (e.g., Antoniou, Polychroni, & Vlachakis,
2006; Chaplain, 2008). Several explanations may be offered
for gender differences in stress levels. Greenglass and Burke
(2003) suggested that women’s elevated stress levels may
be the result of gender differences in nonwork domains,
with higher total workload (school plus home), and higher
role conflict between work and family roles. O’Laughlin and
Bischoff (2005) found that women reported less partner sup-
port and greater time investment in household and child
care tasks than did men, and concluded women dispropor-
tionately feel the impact of workload stress. These previous
studies do not, however, explain female teachers’ higher lev-
els of stress from student behavior. Hopf and Hatzichristou
(1999) found female teachers to be more sensitive to exter-
nalizing behavior problems, especially from adolescent male
students, and also found male teachers assessed children’s
interpersonal behaviors as less problematic than did female
teachers. These gender differences in levels of stress bear
further systematic investigation.
Findings from the study support the hypothesis that the
collective efficacy of teachers is related not only to stu-
dent achievement (e.g., Goddard, 2001), but also serves as
a job resource that mediates the effect on stress from stu-
dent behavior on job satisfaction. This finding is consistent
with the results from Bakker et al. (2007), who noted the
importance of support from administrators and colleagues
to help teachers cope with difficult conditions, and espe-
349
cially difficult conditions related to student misbehavior.
With student misbehavior consistently ranking as one of
the strongest sources of teacher stress and burnout (e.g.,
Betoret, 2006; Jepson & Forrest, 2006), identifying factors
that reduce the effect of student misbehavior on teachers’
job satisfaction is important because increasing job satisfac-
tion may lead to a more motivated and stable workforce.
The results from this study suggest that support intended to
assist teachers in managing student misbehavior should not
only be aimed at bolstering individual capabilities, but also at
building collective beliefs about managing student behavior.
Individual teachers make a difference in student behavior,
but the collective efforts of teachers also have a positive
influence on students (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004).
Building the collective motivation of a school staff through
attention to the sources of collective efficacy—postulated as
successful past experience, observation of successful others,
verbal persuasion, and group affect (Bandura, 1997)—may
reduce the influence of teachers’ stress from student be-
havior on job satisfaction, even in challenging teaching
circumstances.
Limitations
The job satisfaction variance explained by the structural
model (R2 = .34) was modest, and other variables (e.g.,
SES, teachers’ self-efficacy) likely explain additional vari-
ance. Similarly, the direct effect of the two job stress vari-
ables on job satisfaction was significant but modest, and
other variables and sources of job stress that influence job
satisfaction were not included in this study. The TCE for
instruction factor did not mediate the effect of job stress
from workload on job satisfaction, which may have been
the result of a lack of congruence in the TCE domain (i.e.,
efficacy to provide effective instruction) and the job stress
domain (i.e., workload). The results from the correlational
data in this study should be interpreted cautiously, especially
in terms of the directionality of the results implied by the
structural model. Although the model tested in this arti-
cle was based on theory postulating that collective efficacy
serves as a job resource that mediates how stress influences
job satisfaction, other models may also serve to explain the
relationship among the variables of interest. Studies that use
longitudinal approaches can help clarify the directionality of
the relationships among the key variables and, in particular,
can be used to examine the causal ordering of teacher stress
and collective efficacy in their effects on job satisfaction.
Findings from this study bear the limitations characteris-
tic of cross-sectional data gained from self-report surveys.
Last, the sample was restricted to Canadian teachers in one
metropolitan area and, although a large number of teachers
responded from a wide variety of schools, the participants
in this study may not represent other samples of teachers in
different settings.
350
Conclusion
Job stress is a real concern in the teaching profession,
with well-established links between job stress, burnout, and
teacher attrition (e.g., Greenglass & Burke, 2003). Teach-
ers’ individual classroom management skills may alleviate
feelings of stress about student behavior, but the results from
this study suggest that teachers’ beliefs in their collective
capabilities to manage student behavior provides some re-
lief of the negative effects that job stress has on satisfaction
from teaching. The present study contributes to the existing
literature on collective efficacy and job stress, with both the-
oretical and practical implications. The study contributes to
theory building by establishing that the measure of collective
efficacy appears reliable and valid across different groups of
teachers, and by providing a somewhat more sophisticated
way of thinking about multifactor job stress and its relation-
ship to collective beliefs. The practical implications of the
study are that stress from workload may be harder to influence
than stress from student behavior. Teachers’ perception of
workload stress appears unaffected by collective confidence
in instructional approaches. However, the promising find-
ing is that stress from student behavior may be amenable to
changes focused at building collective confidence to improve
student discipline.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research was funded by generous support from the Social Sci-
ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and from
the Spencer Foundation.
REFERENCES
Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and ur-
ban secondary school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92,
287–293.
Antoniou, A. S., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A. N. (2006). Gender and
age differences in occupational stress and professional burnout between
primary and high school teachers in Greece. Journal of Managerial Psy-
chology, 21, 682–690.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos (Version 16.0) [Computer software]. Chicago:
SPSS.
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulu, D. (2007).
Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are
high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 274–284.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout
among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26,
519–539.
Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (1995). A
structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 65, 49–67.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy
beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 821–832.
Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee
secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28, 195–209.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression
effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325.
The Journal of Educational Research
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit in-
dexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling,
9, 233–255.
Evans, L. (1998). Teacher morale, job satisfaction and motivation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gates, G. S. (2007). Emerging thought and research on student, teacher, and
administrative stress and coping. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the
study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 93, 467–476.
Goddard, R. D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measure-
ment of collective efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 62, 97–110.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the
relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807–818.
Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Teacher stress. In M. F. Dollard, A.
H. Winefield, & H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service
professions (pp. 213–236). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hopf, D., & Hatzichristou, C. (1999). Teacher gender-related influences in
Greek schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 1–18.
Jepson, E., & Forrest, S. (2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher
stress: The role of achievement striving and occupational commitment.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 183–197.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Klassen, R. M., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I., Kates, A., & Hannok,
W. (2008). Motivation beliefs of secondary school teachers in Canada
and Singapore: A mixed methods study. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24, 1919–1934.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
New York: Guilford.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary
school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229–243.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educa-
tional Review, 53, 27–35.
Manthei, R., Gilmore, A., Tuck, B., & Adair, V. (1996). Teacher stress in
intermediate schools. Educational Research, 38, 3–19.
Mulaik, S. A., & Millsap, R. E. (2000). Doing the four-step right. Structural
Equation Modeling, 7, 36–73.
O’Laughlin, E. M., & Bischoff, L. G. (2005). Balancing parenthood and
academia: Work/family stress as influenced by gender and tenure status.
Journal of Family Issues, 26, 79–106.
Punch, K. F., & Tuettmann, E. (1990). Correlates of psychological dis-
tress among secondary teachers. British Educational Research Journal, 16,
369–382.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonex-
perimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 7, 422–445.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy
and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy,
and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611–625.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning:
The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 187–207.
Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs
as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Re-
search, 100, 303–310.
Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teachers’
sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience
and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 181–193.
AUTHOR NOTE
Robert M. Klassen is an Associate Professor in the De-
partment of Educational Psychology at the University of
Alberta. His research interests include motivation beliefs of
adolescents with learning difficulties and motivation in the
workplace. In addition, he has a growing interest in program
evaluation in health and educational settings.